query_sift

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided; description only says 'Run a natural language query' without disclosing whether it is read-only, has side effects, pagination, or rate limits. The output schema exists but is not described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Concise, front-loaded with purpose, and uses a clear Args block. No redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Simple tool with two parameters and an output schema (not shown). Description covers parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like read-only guarantee or return format. Adequate for straightforward usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema fields). The description provides basic semantics for both parameters: sift_id as identifier and natural_language as the question with an example. This adds value beyond schema titles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it runs a natural language query over a sift's extracted records. It is specific about the action (run query) and the resource (sift's records). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'aggregate_sift', which might also involve queries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aggregate_sift or find_records. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.